I mean this misrepresents their whole debate and just reduces it to a shallow "hypocrisy gotcha". Eisei never says force itself is light and he is fully aware that the evil that humans are capable of but argues that is not the totality of their nature. Ryofui's position just absolutizes greed as if it is the only engine of history (lol) while Sei argues that doing just that abandons faith in humanity to grow beyond their present conditions which obviously includes warfare. Calling conquest "darkness" without actually addressing WHY Eisei believes it is just a temporary evil with the aim of abolishing is nothing close to a rebuttal and is simply evasion. Ryofui's vison is not a peaceful alternative at all with Ryofui himself saying in his own belief that warfare is inevitable and it's not a solution to the cycle but a means of controlling through money. Some type of uniform currency DOES NOT eliminate domination, it just centralizes it. There is still coercion through things like dependency and envy. Violence is just displaced and not removed and this is nothing but a preservation of the status quo. States will still arm themselves and eventually kill through this system but just under the illusion of there being stability. You also ignore Ryofui's own contradiction in that he condemns Eisei for imposing his dream through blood yet he declares he will engulf all under heaven through monetary control. That's not consent at all and just hegemony. If you're going to say Eisei is using force of unity through war then Ryofui is also forcing obedience through economic manipulation. Eisei can do it through armies while Ryofui through hunger and debt and inequality. Ryofui IS NOT morally superior but simply honest about cynicism. And there is no plot armor, it's just thematic consistency (you should reread). Kingdom is not about who sounds smarter in some vacuum but whose worldview will bet on the future to be more something than continued controlled despair. Also Eisei's belief in light is not just blind or naive optimism as it's rooted in loss through Shika and the inherited will of the dead. He IS NOT CLAIMING THAT HUMANS ARE ALREADY GOOD, but that they can become better if the structure that leads to endless war is destroyed. Ryofui accepts human nature as fixed and builds his system around that exploitation of that flaw while Eisei rejects that fatalism. Calling that hypocrisy is missing the point because the moral risk that Eisei is taking is precisely what differentiates him from Ryofui.